#1
|
|||
|
|||
Permission To Fly
....is the title of my latest Fox News column, in which I analyze and
endorse the legislation introduced last week to clarify launch regulation for suborbital flights and passengers: http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/ar...48.html#003148 -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Permission To Fly
http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/ar...48.html#003148
The Fox news one is at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100181,00.html which is a good place to start as it is written in a more readable style. Well, at least until you start quoting from the law :-). (Seriously, you do a pretty good job at legalese-to-english, there are just a few sentences that I had to re-read to parse). If I read it right, it closes off the experimental aircraft possibility (I'm not clear on the status of that choice under current law). And doesn't seem to particularly require or even encourage any streamlining beyond the current process for a launch license. So this bill looks like a good thing, but does it go far enough? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Permission To Fly
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:44:38 CST, in a place far, far away, Jim
Kingdon made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/ar...48.html#003148 The Fox news one is at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100181,00.html which is a good place to start as it is written in a more readable style. D'oh! That's the link I meant to post. Thanks. Well, at least until you start quoting from the law :-). (Seriously, you do a pretty good job at legalese-to-english, there are just a few sentences that I had to re-read to parse). If I read it right, it closes off the experimental aircraft possibility (I'm not clear on the status of that choice under current law). And doesn't seem to particularly require or even encourage any streamlining beyond the current process for a launch license. Well, it sort of suggests it, but probably not strongly enough. So this bill looks like a good thing, but does it go far enough? It probably doesn't go as far as some of us would like it to, but I think that it goes as far as is politically feasible right now, and I think that it goes far enough to loosen certain investors' purse strings. At least one of them... -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Permission To Fly
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:44:38 CST, in a place far, far away, Jim Kingdon made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/ar...48.html#003148 The Fox news one is at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100181,00.html which is a good place to start as it is written in a more readable style. D'oh! That's the link I meant to post. Thanks. Well, at least until you start quoting from the law :-). (Seriously, you do a pretty good job at legalese-to-english, there are just a few sentences that I had to re-read to parse). If I read it right, it closes off the experimental aircraft possibility (I'm not clear on the status of that choice under current law). And doesn't seem to particularly require or even encourage any streamlining beyond the current process for a launch license. Well, it sort of suggests it, but probably not strongly enough. So this bill looks like a good thing, but does it go far enough? It probably doesn't go as far as some of us would like it to, but I think that it goes as far as is politically feasible right now, and I think that it goes far enough to loosen certain investors' purse strings. At least one of them... But does it imply that Burt Rutan will need to get a launch license for each and every flight of SpaceShipOne, at great time and expense? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Permission To Fly
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:45:32 CST, in a place far, far away, (Bill Bogen) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: It probably doesn't go as far as some of us would like it to, but I think that it goes as far as is politically feasible right now, and I think that it goes far enough to loosen certain investors' purse strings. At least one of them... But does it imply that Burt Rutan will need to get a launch license for each and every flight of SpaceShipOne, at great time and expense? No, I believe that the first one is the hardest, but also that they are trying to come up with a way to license a class of launches, rather than have to do that. To me it seems one of the biggest problems with Dennis Tito's flight was the fact that NASA was left out of the approval process. Dennis Tito went to the Russian, payed their price, they accepted him as a passenger and flew him. Free Enterprise, Capitalism. NASA among others raised a big stink over the whole matter. "We're not ready for space tourism, it's at least 20 years away." "Well, then, we're not going to give you any ISS safety training here in Houston." "Oh, Come on guys, we didn't mean you Cosmonauts, just that tourist guy. Please, please, lets start the training." "Looky here, Looky here, the tourist guy isn't safe to fly, he hasn't been trained on how to use the safety equipment. He's not safe." "What, your still going, even though you're untrained and unsafe. Well, then, you can't come in our modules." "And, Your gonna have to pay, pay for all the extra stuff we had to do to try to stop you from going." "Yeah pay, your gonna have to pay. Don't touch anything, you break it, it yours, then your really gonna have to pay, because it priceless right now" "ISS this is Houston: Ah, looks like the tourist guy is coming anyway. Ah, could you guys make sure he doesn't feel welcome. And, Ah, don't give him a hug he leaves." Government beaurocrats don't like to be ignored. By codifying the training requirements of passengers, it looks more like a fix to stop tourism for the next 20 years or so. Allowing the Russians to gain a much greater lead in the area, as they won't have the restriction. Other than what was negotiated between Dennis Tito's flight and Mark Shuttleworth's flight. The next step after suborbital tourism, is orbital. Having a place to go is a huge plus over just going round and round in a tiny ascent/decent vehicle. ISS would be a nice place to visit, until there is enough business in the industry to require a separate station dedicated to the things tourist would want. Large windows, a room with a view, large gym, swimming pool, good food, and a walk on the outside. SpaceShipOne, is a similar situation. Burt Rutan, picked the easiest and least expensive route to get into the testing phase of his vehicle. Lots of secrecy, then some meeting with beaurocrats and a public announcement. Certified Glider. One door closes, and another opens, but what's it look like inside? Is the hurdle higher or lower for the next person? Is the government nurturing or hindering a vast fledgling industry that has yet to fly it's first passenger here in the land of the free and home of the brave? Craig Fink |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|